Actually, to be technical, driving with your lights ON, 24/7, is
required in Canada, reguardless of DRLs.(though DRLs satisfy
the requirement of course) They love to give tickets up there
to tourists for this.
I have not heard of anyone getting a ticket for not having them, but you CAN
get ticketed for not. I almost got one. Had a "roadside vehicle inspection"
done by the RCMP one day, told me my DRLs are not operating. I had to remind
him that my 1988 Cavalier didn't come with them.
However, the DRLs on my Monte haven't worked since I got it and it passed
three safety inspections in two provinces.
I am reading through a few things on the 'net, and we all know if it's on
the internet it must be true. I can't seem to find a reference to DRLs in
the Nova Scotia Motor Vehicle Act or the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. From
what I am reading, it's a Canadian law requiring all new vehicles must be
equiped with DRLs from the factory and you are not allowed to disable or
modify. But do you have to fix them if they break?
I can't find anything about having to turn your lights on during the day if
your vehicle is not equiped with DRLs. Apparently that law is only in some
European countries. In Ontario and in Nova Scotia it just says:
Except as provided in this Section, every vehicle upon a highway within this
Province during the period from a half hour after sunset to a half hour
before sunrise and at any other time when visibility is so limited by fog,
rain, snow or other atmospheric condition or by insufficiency of light as to
render not clearly discernible any person on the highway at a distance of
300 metres ahead shall be equipped with lighted head lamps and lighted rear
lamps as in this Section respectively required for different classes of
vehicle and subject to exemption with reference to lights on parked vehicles
as declared in subsection (10).
They're not required in any state but some states require all exterior
lighting to work as designed in order to pass a yearly vehicle
inspection (Pennsylvania is one of them).
There are two classes of pedestrians in these days of reckless motor
traffic - the quick and the dead.
~ Lord Dewar 1933 ~
Climbing into a hot car is like buckling on a pistol. It is the great
equalizer. ~ Henry G. Felsen 1964 ~
Light sensitivity is a problem for some people...especially for those over
50. Remember also, light shining in the eyes for prolonged periods has
always been a very effective form of torture...especially for those with
sensitivity to it.
600,000,000 extra gallons of gasoline (and added polution) a year to
generate the electrical energy to power them, for one. And that's within
the USA alone.
Hardly. Apples and oranges analogy again. One can opt not to use their
belts. One cannot opt to not use the DRLs. I haven't said get rid of the
DRL's only to provide a switch for those that don't want to use them. Kind
of makes sense, doesn't it? ;-) Although it wouldn't break my heart if
they disappeared tomorrow.
Man, this is just too much! It's because of a__holes like you that
manufacturers invented DRL's!!!! You think it looks cool driving around
with your fog lights on, so you disable your DRL's. Is that it? You
think it looks cool to drive with your fog lights on? You are one stupid
so'm bitch bubba! Then you forget or choose not to put on your
headlights with darkness approaching. People like you are such dumbasses
man! DRL's were invented because of you! Earth to Fowler - (Now try to
follow me on this with your little pea-brain) What does "F-O-G" spell?
Fog, man! Fog! You're supposed to use "Fog lights" when it's foggy out!
Are you so stupid that you didn't know that? Then you shouldn't be
driving. Especially without DRL's. You're a menace on the road!!!
You might want to reconsider using that type of lighting
at dusk. Most states require the use of HEADLAMPS at dusk and
during other hours of limited vision. I see Pennsylvania State
Police stopping Canadians on I-81 all the time for driving with
only DRLs, at dust, when headlamps are required. It costs them
$136 for during without headlamps ;)
"S.B. Fowler" wrote:
Lets see, DRL's run during DAYLIGHT hours. Light sensitivity would be
more caused by natural sources. DRL's aren't even noticed during the
sunny time of the day.
600 million gallons? You found this in what source. Running your
headlamps on high beam 24 hours a day doesn't cause a pinch of
difference in gas mileage but it will cause the bulb to fail sooner.
Now running AC does cause lower gas milage. So we should disable all AC
units in cars ;-p
NOT apples and oranges! DRL is a SAFETY device as is the seatbelt.
Those lights have caused me to see cars and cycles I may not have seen.
If it saves one life it's a good thing.
That'd be a valid argument, if it were true. Safety belts do save lives; there
are many studies to back that. DRLs are an affectation that some hotshot at GM
cooked up and he/she had too much power for any safety people to say NO!
For every study that says that the use of DRLs helps avoid collisions, there are
other stats that indicate the opposite. A follow-up study of the initial
state-mandated implementation of DRLs in Canada showed a 9% reduction in frontal
collisions for the following year. Meanwhile, south of the Canadian border, a
similar study showed that collisions for the same period - in a country where
DRLs were not required - the frontal collision rate went down 12%. This would
seem to indicate a safety DISbenefit of 3% with the use of DRLs.
Motorcycle rider associations are up in arms about these things, since, as more
and more dual-track vehicles equipped with DRLs are introduced onto US roads,
the number of collisions with motorcycles increases. GM knows this but won't
back down and 'lose face'. US-DOT/NHTSA knows this, but they became an
ineffective bureaucracy many years ago, and won't do anything about it except
'wait and see'.
For lay and professional opinions & some facts about DRLs, go to:
and look at Dockets; 4124, 8885, 17243
Reading this thread is making me think that DRLs in the states is just like
the metric system, and the Kyoto Accord. If you don't want to "jump on the
bandwagon" that's fine, but come on, change can be good. Seriously, do DRLs
really bother Americans that much? Is it really a life changing event? Does
it really make or break your decision on purchasing a vehicle? If all
vehicles came with DRLs would you just not purchase a car? Do you really
feel more/less safe when driving a vehicle with DRLs?
Let's focus on the more dangerous things on the road instead of DRLs:
1. Driving under the influence.
2. Not wearing a safety belt.
3. Not properly securing all cargo, including loose gravel.
4. Not properly securing children in the back seat in a proper child seat.
5. etc. etc.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.